Georgy's 'Myth' continues to
explore the history and the authority of the 'St.Thomas' throne as claimed
by the Catholicose faction. It is really funny to read his conclusion which
highlight the fallacy of the 'long' history of the controversial throne
attributed to St.Thomas. First read his conclusion. I quote,

"From all
the above, we can see that the term `Throne of St Thomas' has a long and
illustrious history and was not suddenly sprung from Devalokam in the 1970s.
As early as 1959, the Patriarch had objected to its usage. This gives the
lie to the urban legend that the reference to the throne of St Thomas was
unheard of before the 1970s."

We have to see this statement
at different levels on the ground of Georgy's arguments. But before
elaborating such a discussion I would like to remind the readers that the
Catholicose faction was received into the SO Church and the 'peaceful co
existance' came into effect only in 1958. Georgy agrees that in 1959
Patriarch objected to it. Let us look into the time gap between these
incidents. It was on Dec.16 that the Catholicose was accepted by the
Patriarch. The reply of the Catholicose was also of the same date and it
reached the Patriarchate and the reply from the Patriarch reached Kottayam
in four months time. The time gap between the acceptance and the questioning
of the usage took only four months. Remembering the slow mail moving of
those times we can be sure that the Patriarch's disapproval to this usage
was comparatively very immediate.

Eventhough Geevarghese Bava
resisted at the beginning to the disapproval of the Patriarch we can see
that he too slowly withdrew from this usage, I believe for the scope of
unity. We see Augen Bava almost completely refraing from using this title
till the time of controversy. This being the fact, Georgy tries to 'spin',
'spin' and 'spin' to 'prove' that St.Thomas throne is not a controversy that
started in '1970 'but was a controversy even in '1959' onwards !. We will
see further details below.

Now let us see the threads
that he used to spun his myth.

1.
He quotes the verse Matt.19:27-28. Georgy says that St.Thomas
has a throne because the Lord promised all the twelve apostles twelve
thrones. The contention to Georgy's argument on St.Thomas throne is very
evidently stated in that reply to Peter. There it is said about the
reward that they receive for following Him forsaking everything. It is said
there "in the regeneration... when son of man sit on the throne of his
glory..." the apostles also "shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel". Georgy concludes this argument with the following
words.

"St
Thomas, being one of the 12 apostles, had his own throne according to the
scheme of Our Lord Jesus."

It would be a correct
statement if he could change the statement from past perfect tense to future
perfect by changing 'had' to 'will have'. Then it will be 'St.Thomas ...will
have his own throne ... ' to sit with the Lord to judge the twelve tribes.
This will be the sharing of the glory by the apostles at the final judgement.
St.Thomas will have a throne there to sit to judge the twelve tribes of
Israel, including the community and society in which Peter and his fellow
apostles forsook eveything to follow the Lord. This is the promise of the
sharing of the eschatological glory. This throne has nothing to do with the
apostolic throne of succession of priesthood nor to the controversial claim
recently originated in Malankara..

2.
I quote fully the next argument raised by Georgy.

"Gregorius
Bar Hebraeus (1226-1286 CE). In the Hoodoyo Canon (Book of Directions,
Paris, 1898), Chapter VII, Section I, Bar Hebraeus uses the term throne with
respect to Patriarchs,
Metropolitans and Bishops alike. He also refers to the ceremony of
``enthronement'' for bishops. Additionally, Bar Hebraeus regards St Thomas
as the first bishop of the East. Implication: Even bishops had thrones, and
since St Thomas was regarded as the first bishop of the East, the use of the
term `Throne of St Thomas' is appropriate."

In the first statement he was
saying that St.Thomas had a throne because he will have a throne in the
final judgement day. When he quotes Bar Ebroyo and his Nomocanon he
justifies his wishful thinking that St.Thomas has a throne because all
bishops have a throne. Bishops de facto have thrones by 'Sunthroneeso'
(enthronement). By this argument Georgy is 'degrading' the Apostle Thomas to
the level of a bishop or is he equating the throne of the Catholicose to
the level of an episcopal throne!

He also affix a note to the
Nomocanon, known as Hoodaya canon in brackets, 'Book of Directions, Paris
1898'. This note is a big twist to revert the authentic version of the
canon. Paul Bedjan a Roman Catholic Syriac scholar priest has printed an
edited version of the Nomocanon in 1898 and was published in Paris. Thus
came the name Paris canon. He has written an introduction to this edition
in French saying that he has edited (modified) the manuscript of Bar Ebroyo
to suit the Roman ecclesiology. Examples are the directions in this version
authorizing all bisops to consecrate Holy Mooron, proclaiming Patriarch of
Rome as the general head of all Patriarchs.(Reesh Patriarch) Upholding the
Roman edition of the Nomocanon and repudiating the directions in it is
another 'spin' and a twist of fact by the Catholicose faction. The whole
1934 constitution becomes a paradox if someone takes an affirmative stand
that this Paris canon is to be followed seriously in IO administration.

Finally coming back to Bar
Ebroyo, I would like to transliterate the reference from him quoted by
Georgy to state that St.Thomas was referred to as the first bishop of the
east. 'Thooma Sleeho reesh kohne kadmoyo de madanho'. Reesh Kohne means high
priest, kadmoyo= first and de madanho = of the East. (St.Thomas the first
high priest of the East) Payne Smith dictionary differenciates between 'Reesh
Kohne' and 'Reesh Abohoso' (=Patriarch). This difference is having very
important meaning in reference to our topic of discussion. Reesh Kohne is a
bishop, not a Patriarch. What does it mean? There is no reference here that
he consecrated his successor Adai nor he has established a succession line .
Bar Ebroyo himself says later in this book that the bishops of the east
received investiture from Antioch. His Canon testifies that the Council of
Nicea confirmed the authority of the Patriarch of Antioch over the East.The
Church in the east was included in the Patriarchate of Antioch and hence
there cannot be any to duplication of authority in one church. This excludes
all possibility of the existance of a throne in the church of the
east. Throne in the ecclesial meaning is the apostolic priestly succession.
It is not at all mentioned there. Surely, Bar Ebroyo gives no hint to the
apostolic throne of St.Thomas.

3.
Georgy's reference to the judgment of the Kochi Royal Court and
E.M. Philip are discussed together in this reply. In both cases the
reference is to the episcopal throne. The 'throne in Malayalam' is referring
to the episcopate in Malankara. All episcopos are 'enthroned' to the
episcopate and no one has ever protested to the use of throne in this
context. All bishops have thrones of their episcopal sees. E.M. Philip also
uses a figurative language to refer the church in India as the church of
St.Thomas. His book is also titled the 'Indian Church of St.Thomas'. He
refers by this usage only to the St. Thomas tradition, apostolic
origin and antiquity of this Church to which the SOC upholds with high
esteem. This honor is given to the Metropolitan in Malankara. It is never
intented to refer to any equal status with the Patriarch or refers to any
autocephalous church in Malankara.The Tablet at Rakkad Church gives this
honor to none other than the delegate of the Patriarch. The 1972
declaration of St.Thomas throne was not at all in this line. It was the
declaration of independence from the Patriarch. This is the core issue. You
have to address this point of the relation of autocephaly to St.Thomas
throne. Do any of your reference on St.Thomas throne prove to the
autocephaly of Malankara Church or the equal status of the Malankara
Metropolitan/Catholicose to the Patriarch?. St.Thomas throne was equated to
the claim of autocephaly. It is in this context that all the judgments in
the recent church case flatly denied the case of autocephaly. Goeorgy
yourself has stated that the Malankara Church is not autocephalous de jurie.

4.
Next is another controversial document which has not been ratified by any
other contemporary translation or even proper publication. H.G. Dr. Thomas
Mor Athanasius has discussed in detail about this in his book, 'Ithu
Viswasathinte Karyam'. (See page 40,41 or for relevant quotation on page
No.218 and 219 of my book, 'Perumpilly Thirumeni'.) Before going into the
details of this I would like to refer to the more known Abdul Messiah
document of Kumbhom 8, 1913. It admonishes all not to "slacken your Petrine
faith". Here he says not to the 'Thomite Apostolic faith' . For the better
unprejudiced understanding of my readers I am quoting Georgy in full.

" 1912.
From the letter issued on September 17, 1912**, by HH Abdul Masih Patriarch
from St Mary's Church, Niranam: ``…By virtue of the order of the office of
the Shephard, entrusted to Simon Peter by our Lord Jesus Messiah, we are
prompted to perpetuate for you Catholicos or Mapriyana to serve all
spiritual requirements that are necessary for the conduct of the order of
the holy true Church in accordance with its faith.... With Geevarghese Mar
Dionysius Metropolitan, who is the head of the Metropolitans in Malankara
and with other Metropolitans, Ascetics, Deacons and a large number of
faithfuls, we have ordained in person our spiritually beloved Evanios in the
name of Baselius as Mapriyana, i.e., as the Catholicos on the Throne of
St.Thomas in the East, i.e., in India and other places, at the St.Mary's
Church, Niranam on Sunday, 2nd Kanni, 1912 A.D. as per your request.''

Here Georgy is attracted only
to the mention of St.Thomas throne in this document. Forgetting the
aprehensions about the authenticity of this document I am convinced to say
that it is really argueing all against Georgy's claims. See my pointslisted
below.

1.
The alleged author (!) of this letter writes this on his
authority as the Shepherd in virtue of the Petrine authority. Here it is
evident that, even if we agree to all the 'rights and privileges' of this
DEPOSED Patriarch who acted without any knowledge of the Synod and the
Church at large, had no authority over the 'independant, autocephalous'
Thomite Church in India. Even if he refers to a St.Thomas throne what he can
do is nothing beyond his capacity as a (deposed) Patriarch of Antioch. He
cannot transfer a St.Thomas throne from his Church because there is no such
throne there. He cannot consecrate in Malankara a Mafrian from the SOC
without the knowledge of its synod and the ruling Patriarch. He cannot again
de facto consecrate anyone to a Catholicate in the line of the Nestorian
Church. He cannot also create a St.Thomas throne all by himself here in
Malankara. Whatever he could do was, even though illegally and illicitly,
act to the whims and fancies dictated to him at Niranam and the result was
to create a 'moth eaten' and illegitimate Mafrian with the title
Catholicose. He did that at the same time strongly admonished not to
'slacken' its bond with the Patriarchate.

2.
Abdul Messiah in this Kalpana equates the Catholicose to a 'moth eaten'
Mapfrian all against the arguments made by Georgy earlier that the Malankara
Catholicose is not in the line of the mafrianate.

3.
Abdul Messiah in the above quoted document instructs the Catholicose to
perform his duties 'in accordance with the faith and the Malankara
Metropolitan who is the head of the Metropolitans..." Here the cat is out!
It clearly says about the concept of Metran faction of that time. Here it
is evident that the Malankara Metropolitan is the actual head of the Church
and it makes very clear that the Catholicose at that time was only
a titular position. The fact was that the Catholicose of the IO faction was
above the Malankara Metropolitan on Sundays and the vice versa on all other
days of the week.

4.
Here again this document saysthat he has ordained "in person ...Mor Ivanios..
on the Throne of St.Thomas". Even if we agree to all claims of Georgy, this
document clearly says that it was the deposed Patriarch who "in person"
ordained Mor Ivanios on the alleged throne. The 'apostolicity,long
history and antiquity' of this 'illustrious' throne is well exposed in this
document. Thank you georgy for referring to this.

5.
A few of the next citations are from the Notice Kalpana and
peace Kalpana from Geevarghese 1 Bava bearing the St.Thomas throne. His
argument is that these were all exhibits in the SC court of India and so
they all have sanctity and legal appeal. The curse of even our intelligentia
is the fallacy of the notion about the approval of the courts and the
sanctity it gets being an exhibit in the court. But here I am happy that
Georgy has quoted the reference to the 1957 Kalpana of Yacob111 Bava. It
makes very clear that Yacob 111 intended for peace and as many think the
peace initiative was not a surrendering after 1958 judgment. I quote,

" Patriarch HH Yakub III issued a Bull to Geevarghese Bava, which among
other things, included the following words: ``…We also were longing for
peace in the Malankara Church and the unity of the organs of the one body of
the Church. We have expressed this desire of ours very clearly in the
apostolic proclamation (reference is to the proclamation dated November
11, 1957) we issued to you soon after our ascension on the Throne. This
desire of ours gained strength with all vigor day by day without in any
way slackened and the Lord God has been pleased to end the dissension
through us. Glory be to him. To bring forth the peace in the Malankara
Church we hereby accept with pleasure Mar Baselious Gheevarghese as
Catholicose. Therefore we send our hearty greetings...''

Following many rounds of
negotiations, the reply to this letter was exchanged with the Patriarchal
representative Mar Julius Elias on December 16, 1958, at the Old Seminary in
Kottayam by Geevarghese Bava. This letter (referred to earlier), presented
as exhibit A 20
to the honourable Supreme Court of India, found the Catholicos describing
himself in the following words: ``the meek
Baselious Catholicos named as Geevarghese II seated on the Throne of the
East of Apostle St.Thomas''. He went on to add,
``We, for the sake of peace, in the Church, are
pleased to accept Moran Mar Ignatius Yakub III as Patriarch of Antioch
subject to the constitution passed by the Malankara Syrian Christian
Association and now in force.'' The Patriarch's reply to the letter came
four months later dated April 8, 1959, (exhibit A 23 with the Supreme
Court), wherein he made clear his displeasure: ``…Your use of the
expression holiness with your name is not right. This expression can be used
only by the Patriarchs. Your assertion that you are sitting at the Throne of
St.Thomas is unacceptable. No one has ever heard of St.Thomas establishing a
Throne. Similarly your assumption that yours is the Church of the East and
that you are Catholicos of the East is equally untrue and unwarranted….''

The above quotation from
Georgy prove the following:

1.
The 1958 Kalpana of H.H. Yacoob 111 came to India much before the actual
exchange took place on Dec.18,1958. It was signed on Dec.9 at Damascus. We
all know that the negotiation here was on the draft of the "Kanthari"
Kalpana. Even the exchange of letters was prolonged till midnight and
several calls and drafts passed in between Chingavanam and Devalokam. It was
for the 'sake of peace' that the Kanthari Kalpana* was received at the
eleventh hour

2.
Patriarch was willing for an acceptance even before the
1958 SC judgment. See the 1957 Kalpana's full text in my book, Perumpilly
Thirumeni Pages153-55.

3.
The genuine approach for the sake of peace was subdued in the efforts to
uphold the 'Kanthari' spirit of the reply by the Catholicose. The Two
Kanthari were the Constitution and the the St.Thomas throne.

4.
The controversial usage of the St. Thomas throne as well as the honorific
'His Holiness' were first used in the united church in this 'Kanthari'
Kalpana and was challenged by the Patriarch on April 8, 1959, after a few
months of time , leaving beside the delivery time of that time we can say it
was challenged 'immediately'. Eventhough the attitude of Geevarghese 11 Bava
was tough at the beginning but he also turned mild and we can see him using
the heading paper without the controversial throne in the peace times.Then
after Augen Bava ascended he was famous for not using this till the
controversy took momemtum.

My conclusions:

1.
Georgy himself proved that the St.Thomas throne was
nothing beyond the honorific throne of the episcopate. But the claims in the
controversy was that it was equal to the Apostolic Petrine office and the
symbol of autocephaly.

2.
The claim of the apostolicity of the St.Thomas throne is
negated by its alleged founder Mor Abdul Messiah himself. He says that he
established the Mafrian in his authority as the shepherd on the Petrine
throne. (Actually he was deposed and hence had no authority)

3.
In the Church we have thrones for the Patriarch, Catholicose and the
Metropolitan/Episcopa. The sees of these thrones confine to their authority
in the Church and its specific jurisduction. Thrones of authority over the
divisions of the universal Church were established by the Holy Ecumenical
Synods.To our tradition it cannot be declared unilaterally.

4.
Apostolic throne of St.Peter is upheld for the canonical
validity of its succession and priesthood. The alleged Abdul Messiah
document points to this concept.The Metran faction leaders of that time also
held the same view.

5.
The reference by Bar Ebraya says nothing about the apostolic succession in
India or to the succession line of the St.Thomas Throne anywhere.

6.
The documents cited by Georgy before the 1912 incident are merely
in honor of the episcopate in Malankara and in the honor of the founder of
the Malankara Church. It has nothing to do with the present day claims of
the autocephalous throne in Malankara.

7.
The alleged succession of the Persian Nestorian Catholicate has nothing to
do with the 1912 Catholicate or the commonly accepted 1958/64 Catholicate in
Malankara. The Malankara Catholicate is nothing but the resurgent 'moth
eaten' (Sorry to repeat this quote from Georgy) Mafrianate in the Syrian
Orthodox Church.

8.
The Mafrianate has no apostolic succession from our Patron Saint
St.Thomas. All the Mafrians in history were second in rank to the Patriarch
of Antioch and were usually consecrated by the Patriarchs.

9.
The biblical reference to the throne promised to St.Thomas and
other apostles are the thrones to share the glory of the judgment of the 12
tribes of Israel.

10.
Absence of any reference to the St.Thomas throne and autocephaly
in the 1934 constitution itself points that these issues are not part of
the original ideology of its factional founders. It only refers to the
declaration that the primate of this church is the Patriarch of Antioch and
also declares that the Church is a division of the Eastern Orthodox
Church.The 1934 constitution itself speaks against the claims of autocephaly
and St.Thomas throne.

*'Kanthari' is the very hot
but small chilly of Kerala. When Mor Julius jokingly remarked that the
Kalpana handed over to the Catholicose was 'heavy' and the one given to him
by the Catholicose was comparatively very 'light', the Catholicose replied
that it is like the Kanthari, small but very hot. This statement proves even
in the argument of Georgy.